[DEFEATED] Repeal "Animal Protection Act"

[Frisbeeteria]

The World Assembly:

Accepting the noble intent inherent to GA#228, to protect animals,

Deploring however, that GA#228 is subject to many flaws and errors which make it more difficult to achieve many of the goals set out in the resolution itself,

Understanding that the restrictive definition of pain in GA#228 does little to limit suffering nor does it prohibit non-painful forms of abuse,

Noting that the long periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are a detriment to the protection it is intended to provide,

Trusting that certain forms of entertainment involving the well regulated use of animals should be legal, and regretting that this act makes such activities a crime,

Disagreeing that ownership of and responsibility for an animal should be acquired with any animal that any person attempts to care for even temporarily,

Regretting that this resolution's many flaws are a hindrance to the members of the World Assembly, rather than a boon,

Hereby repeals GA# 228, the "Animal Protection Act".

FINAL DRAFT.

[Gallup]

Looks good to me!

[Normandium]

"Normandium would support this repeal, and sees little to nothing wrong with it."

[Abacathea]

The World Assembly:

Accepting the noble intent inherent to GA#228, to protect animals,

Deploring however, that GA#228 is subject to many flaws and errors which make it more difficult in most cases to achieve the goals set out in the resolution itself,

Noticing the definition of pain in GA#228 is widely divergent from the definition of actual pain, and is therefore an imperfect metric by which to measure suffering,
I actually love this line, but don't be surprised if someone asks "what is?"

Acknowledging that one cannot reasonably prove the ability to feel and experience pain without inflicting pain of some kind,

Asserting that scientific research will be unnecessarily impaired by the limitations imposed by this resolution, especially in the field of pain reduction,
I would be inclined to rethink this, lest you get the pro-animal rights people (of which i'm one) stating "oh, so you want this act repealed so you can test pain on animals?" which is how it could read

Understanding that abuse can be suffered by animals that does not include the experience of pain, even if properly defined,

Further understanding that the long periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are a detriment to the protection it is intended to provide,

Trusting that certain forms of well regulated animal racing should be legal, and regretting that this act makes such activities a crime,
Again, not a point i think will put your act in good stead, you could probably remove this entirely without harming the overall integrity of this.

Asserting that protections should be provided to animals even if under the "31 Day" limitation.

Disagreeing that ownership of and responsibility for an animal should be acquired with any animal that any person attempts to care for even temporarily,

Also regretting that this resolution's many flaws are a hindrance to the members of the world assembly, rather than a boon,

Hereby repeals GA# 228, the "Animal Protection Act".

Quite an early rough draft. I'd love any input you might have.

Overall, I support, with the above changes of course.

[Discoveria]

The World Assembly:

Accepting the noble intent inherent to GA#228, to protect animals,

Deploring however, that GA#228 is subject to many flaws and errors which make it more difficult in most cases to achieve the goals set out in the resolution itself,

Noticing the definition of pain in GA#228 is widely divergent from the definition of actual pain, and is therefore an imperfect metric by which to measure suffering, I don't find this argument very persuasive - the definition in GAR#228 is similar to the one from the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Acknowledging that one cannot reasonably prove the ability to feel and experience pain without inflicting pain of some kind, This too is not persuasive. I see what you're trying to demonstrate but I don't think the flaws in the resolution hinge on the problem of pain.

Asserting that scientific research will be unnecessarily impaired by the limitations imposed by this resolution, especially in the field of pain reduction, The reason this is true is that GAR#228 prohibits "unnecessary" pain and suffering - the word 'unnecessary' creating an extremely high threshold for what is considered acceptable treatment of animals. This is the real issue I have with GAR#228 and I would support a repeal on this basis alone.

Understanding that abuse can be suffered by animals that does not include the experience of pain, even if properly defined,

Further understanding that the long periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are a detriment to the protection it is intended to provide,

Trusting that certain forms of well regulated animal racing should be legal, and regretting that this act makes such activities a crime,

Asserting that protections should be provided to animals even if under the "31 Day" limitation.

Disagreeing that ownership of and responsibility for an animal should be acquired with any animal that any person attempts to care for even temporarily, I agree strongly - the clause in question creates ownership of an animal when there's no good reason for it. Just because you feed an animal on your property for 31 days doesn't make you suddenly responsible for it. Stray cats don't become yours just because you feed them. Animals held in a home while their owners go on holiday don't suddenly become the property of the animal home. I'd use an example like the ones I've given here.

Also regretting that this resolution's many flaws are a hindrance to the members of the world assembly, rather than a boon,

Hereby repeals GA# 228, the "Animal Protection Act".

[The Dourian Embassy]

I've taken out some of the weaker clauses, and punched up a couple others. Any more input?

[Discoveria]

Trusting that certain forms entertainment involving the well regulated use of animals should be legal, and regretting that this act makes such activities a crime,

[The Maynard Islands]

This repeal has our support.

[Abacathea]

All I have to say is this:

Support

[Imperium of Tanith]

I'll support this, the APA had a lot of typos, which was the reason I didn't support it.

-Jack Valois-Lee I, WA Delegate of the Imperium of Tanith

[The Dourian Embassy]

Any other notes? The issues raised so far have been dealt with(insomuch as I am able to do so without watering it down too much).

Anything else or is this thing ready to go to the floor?

[United Federation of Canada]

Any other notes? The issues raised so far have been dealt with(insomuch as I am able to do so without watering it down too much).

Anything else or is this thing ready to go to the floor?

Looks good to us.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Ok then, I believe I'm ready to move on then. Time to submit and campaign!

[Ilstoria]

Delegates,

Please reconsider your support of the Repeal of the Animal Protection Act on the following grounds:
Understanding that the restrictive definition of pain in GA#228 was not intended to prevent non-pain related suffering as those kinds of suffering would end animal related industry and are near impossible to measure.

Noting that the long periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are intended to allow full regional autonomy before WA involvement. It is not the job of PAWS or the WA to micromanage nations capable of upholding basic standards, but to provide support if there are conflicts.

Trusting that certain forms of entertainment involving the well regulated use of animals should be legal, and understanding that if steps are taken to reduce or eliminate pain reasonably they shall remain legal under the act.

Believing that ownership of and responsibility for an animal should be acquired with any animal that any person attempts to care for in an extended period of time and believing a month is more than enough time to find someone else to care for the animal.
The so called "flaws" are not flaws at all but provide the best animal protections with as little infringement on human rights and industry as possible.

Thanks for your time.

-Queen Ilstoria III

[Benjamin Mark]

Sure, our country will be happy to support it once it comes to vote.

Devin Rice
WA Ambassador

[The Two Jerseys]

Delegates,

Please reconsider your support of the Repeal of the Animal Protection Act on the following grounds:
Understanding that the restrictive definition of pain in GA#228 was not intended to prevent non-pain related suffering as those kinds of suffering would end animal related industry and are near impossible to measure.

Noting that the long periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are intended to allow full regional autonomy before WA involvement. It is not the job of PAWS or the WA to micromanage nations capable of upholding basic standards, but to provide support if there are conflicts.

Trusting that certain forms of entertainment involving the well regulated use of animals should be legal, and understanding that if steps are taken to reduce or eliminate pain reasonably they shall remain legal under the act.

Believing that ownership of and responsibility for an animal should be acquired with any animal that any person attempts to care for in an extended period of time and believing a month is more than enough time to find someone else to care for the animal.
The so called "flaws" are not flaws at all but provide the best animal protections with as little infringement on human rights and industry as possible.

Thanks for your time.

-Queen Ilstoria III

No, they are flaws.
What if my friend/relative is in the hospital for over a month and I agree to take care of their pet until they leave the hospital? Just because I'm caring for the animal doesn't make me its legal owner.
For that matter, what if I toss a piece of bread to a squirrel every morning? Are you seriously going to tell me that since I'm feeding it for a month I become owner of the squirrel?

[Etooia]

Etooia believes this repealment is for the best. While we believe in animal rights the animal rigts bill infringes upon WA members right to jurisdiction over people and animals within the nation. Etooia believes that animal rights bills should be left to regional and national legislation.

[Tyriece]

Tyriece dose not aprove

[Delegate Vinage]

Oh good a better written version of this Repeal.

Probably will vote in favour of it

[Vallox Tor]

Total support of said repeal.

And I know this may sound callous, but animals dont feel pain the same way people do. Pain to an animal servers two purposes and two alone:
1. Indicate when the body is damaged
2. Prevent further contact with entity/event that caused the harm in the first place.

But its not a debilitating scary sensation for animals. Its just data. Compelling data sure, but still just data.


Even if this isnt the reason behind the repeal, even if the main reason is because the resolution was poorly made but the idea sound, Ill still support the repeal.

[Kidlantis]

OOC: You're trying this again?! Thank goodness! I will support this if my region votes for this.

IC: Ambassador-General Nickelson takes the floor...

"Non-painful types of abuse can still be hurtful to an animal. Therefore, I support this resolution, as long as there is a better-written resolution that comes after it."

Official Seal of Support:

SUPPORT

[Araraukar]

"Non-painful types of abuse can still be hurtful to an animal. Therefore, I support this resolution, as long as there is a better-written resolution that comes after it."

Official Seal of Support:
SUPPORT

Well, there isn't such a resolution yet, so by the logic of your own words, you shouldn't yet support it? Am I the only one this doesn't make sense to?

[Abacathea]

"Non-painful types of abuse can still be hurtful to an animal. Therefore, I support this resolution, as long as there is a better-written resolution that comes after it."

Official Seal of Support:
SUPPORT

Well, there isn't such a resolution yet, so by the logic of your own words, you shouldn't yet support it? Am I the only one this doesn't make sense to?

Logical fallacies for the win!

[Kidlantis]

OOC: Or perhaps after this is passed...

[West Ponderosa]

Based on the early reaction, 8 minutes in and 53 for to 1,061 opposed... I did not expect that reaction.

For the record, I voted in favor of this repeal.